Australia has a grand Greek tradition. My hometown of Melbourne is the third-largest Greek speaking city in the World as a result of the Post World War 2 migration. In 2011, Thessaloniki – Greece’s second largest city had a population of 1,104,460 (the overall Metropolitan Area). According the last Australian Census of Population and Housing (2011), there were 123,462 Males and 128,755 Females (total 252,217) who spoke Greek at home although 378,270 people of Greek ancestry were accounted for. Most of them live in Melbourne. Growing up in Melbourne meant there was always a ‘Greek’ element present in my childhood particularly at school as new migrants arrived. But that cultural affinity with Greece is about as close as Australia will ever come to mimicking it. Australia can never become “Asia’s version of Greece” because we do not use an “Asian currency”, we retain total control over our central bank (the currency issuer), and we do not issue public debt in a foreign currency (like the euro as Greece does). The only way we could become like Greece is if we were to join the Eurozone … and then pigs might fly!

When the GFC emerged and confirmed what Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) proponents had been predicting for more than a decade, I initially thought that this might be the ‘paradigm-shift’ line in the sand with respect to economic theory and policy. The OPEC oil price hikes in the 1970s provided the ‘space’ for Monetarism to usurp Keynesian thinking – not as a triumph of evidence and facts but as an ideological shift in thinking. The ideological battle had been going on for three decades in the academy but the oil crises exposed policy flaws in the Keynesian orthodoxy that were exploited by the Monetarists to allow them to reintroduce ideas (and policies) that had been completely discredited during the Great Depression of the 1930s. In the same that the dominant paradigm collapsed in the 1970s, I thought the GFC would so destroy the public credibility of Monetarism’s latest iteration, which we call neo-liberalism, that we could find intellectual space to restore rigor to economic policy and the way economics was taught in the universities. I even thought that the pragmatic and dramatically successful use of fiscal stimulus in most advanced countries would provide the empirical reinforcement necessary to repudiate and expunge neo-liberalism forever. I was wrong. But what the GFC has achieved as neo-liberalism hangs onto the reigns of power in policy making circles is a major breakdown of the so-called ‘European Project’. The creation of ‘Europe’, which was conceived after World War 2 as a means to maintain peace and create prosperity among previously hostile nations, was a major human achievement in the C20th. That vision is now in tatters as the neo-liberals, blinkered by their own Groupthink, steadily dismantle the meaning and application of that great Post WW2 experiment. Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman would be turning over in their graves to see what their ‘Project’ has become under the domination of Wolfgang Schäuble and his lackeys in the Eurogroup. So we might see the demise of neo-liberalism after all as it destroys the grand European political project

Under an accompanying heading – “Beyond Greece” – the German Handelsblatt (a daily financial/business newspaper) published the article (July 14, 2015) – The Uncomfortable Truth About Debt. It was meant to be some sort of justification for the touch German stance against Greece. The authors claimed that “Germany has been hounded internationally for taking a hard line on Greece. But there is a bigger problem on the horizon: the debt mountain in Europe, and the world, is too high”. My BS sensors were on high alert as I read the opening paragraphs. There was good reason for my alert – the article, which would have been read by tens of thousands of German corporate sector managers etc, demonstrates a palpable failure to comprehend what the real issues confronting the Eurozone are and how Eurozone Member States (19 of them) are fundamentally different in terms of fiscal capacity relative to nations that issue their own currency. No wonder the political classes in Germany can get away with behaving so abominably.

There was an article in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review (July 12, 2015) – Left and right labels wear thin, lose definition – which as the title suggests tried to argue that it is hard “to know who or what is left or right wing any more”. The article used a number of examples, including the so-called Communist government of China bailing out its (farcical) share market and the Greek ‘far left’ government agreeing to austerity and on-going debt demands from the creditors, to suggest that it is no longer easy delineating what is left and what is right and dubbing policies accordingly (one way or another) “provides little illumination”. This is a recurring theme in recent years and part of the neo-liberal attempt to blur what it going on and treat ideological stances as reality or factual assessments. It is still very clear to me what is a left-wing position. The rest of the article provides in his own words “little illumination” about the issue. The argument in this blog is that the categories remain influential and meaningful but are blurred through ignorance as to how the monetary system operates. Left-wingers fall prey to right-wing policies because they have bought the TINA myth. That is the only way one could explain the Syriza disaster, for example.